Military

SHAPE News Summary & Analysis

2 February 2004

GENERAL JONES

• An AP dispatch quoting Gen. Jones saying in Pristina Sunday he views the Alliance’s mission in Kosovo as a testing ground for how it will operate in future missions around the world received wide echo in the U.S. press. It was also noted by Britain’s The Guardian and the French news agency AFP. The latter quoted Gen. Jones saying NATO’s Kosovo mission was to set a standard for the future functioning of the Alliance. “We have to ask nations … to remove national caveats which are always inhibitors in terms of operational commander…. It has been wonderful to see this transition occur right here in Kosovo, which is considered to be one of the great test-beds for how the alliance worldwide will have to work in the future,” Gen. Jones was quoted saying. According to the dispatch, he also noted that NATO was going through a process of transition which would enable the Alliance to respond to global concerns. “At the end of this process you will see an Alliance which is rejuvenated, refocused and more capable in terms of the global mission that we are taking on. Part of transformation of NATO is to be able to bring newer techniques and concepts into how we do our business. No one should confuse the fact that we can achieve a reduction in force, yet have greater strategic and tactical capability,” Gen. Jones reportedly said. Referring to KFOR troop numbers, he added: “While you may see fewer numbers in terms of the total force you will actually see greater effect in terms of the utilization of the force. That is to say, less in the supporting establishment and more in the operational establishment. And that will only mean good things for Kosovo.”

NATO

• In an interview with CNN, Jan. 30, NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer reiterated his view that the Alliance would be open to a request for a greater military commitment in Iraq after the country regains its sovereignty this summer. “I could very well imagine if a request would come, after transfer of sovereignty, from an Iraqi government to NATO … that the Alliance would be willing to respond favorably to that request. But let’s wait and see how political developments go in Iraq. It’s a bit early to say,” he said. He stressed, however, that NATO’s first priority is getting it “right” in Afghanistan, adding: “I think NATO has the ambition and should have the ambition to take over the responsibility for much more, what is called provincial reconstruction teams…. It’s my mission and NATO’s mission to take over, of course, in close collaboration with the United States, responsibility for more of these teams.” The BBC echoed Mr. de Hoop Scheffer’s remarks and observed that “the United States has been pushing NATO” to take on a large role in Iraq, as it tries to scale back the number of U.S. troops there. “Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said the Alliance could expand its presence in Iraq, if the Iraqi government that is due to take over from the U.S.-led authority in July requests it…. President Bush welcomed the statement,” the broadcast added. It stressed, however, that at a joint press conference with President Bush, Mr. de Hoop Scheffer made clear that Afghanistan remained his priority. “The international community must win the peace in Afghanistan, if it is to win the war against terrorism,” the program quoted Mr. de Hoop Scheffer saying.

ISAF

• According to Rotterdam’s NRC Handelsblad, Jan. 31, the Dutch government is to contribute six Apache combat helicopters to help maintain security in Afghanistan. The newspaper reported that the helicopters would form part of a contingent including 135 troops that will operate in Afghanistan for six months. The contingent would operate within the scope of ISAF. The helicopters would be stationed at Kabul airport. They could be used within the scope of rapid-response actions or to provide air support to land-based operations. They could also be used to protect convoys. The newspaper quoted Defense Minister Kamp saying the risks in the area where the Apaches will operate, an area of 60 by 70 km surrounding Kabul, were acceptable. “We do not have 30 Apaches to keep them in a museum or to have them taken down, but to deploy them in a responsible way,” Kamp reportedly said. According to the newspaper, he said The Hague would consider requests for missions outside the Kabul area on an ad hoc basis, but stressed, “we have the right to pull the red card and decline such a request.”

A commentary in the Washington Post insists that the Bush administration bears ultimate responsibility for ensuring that Afghanistan does not revert to chaos. It stresses, however, that in the near future, the greatest onus will lie on NATO and its European members, who are in danger of discrediting the transatlantic Alliance and their own ability to contribute to it.
For months, NATO planners have been trying to scrape together the relatively small commitments of resources to set up the PRTs and bolster ISAF, the newspaper says, adding: “The response has been dispiriting. It’s still not certain that European governments will provide the handful of helicopters and the few hundred specialist troops called for. NATO Secretary General de Hoop Scheffer says contributing governments want to be assured, among other things, that they will be backed up by U.S. air and ground forces if they get into trouble. The Bush administration ought to be prepared to coordinate closely with NATO, perhaps by agreeing to place a single commander at the head of both the NATO peacekeeping operation and the U.S.-led fighting force that is still combating the Taliban.”

OTHER NEWS

• According to Reuters, a European spokesman said Sunday U.S. and European negotiators had failed to break a deadlock over signal structure for Europe’s planned multibillion-dollar Galileo satellite navigation tool. The United States had offered to share its satellite know-how if the Europeans accept a U.S.-proposed technical standard. However, some critics reportedly said the offer was designed to serve U.S. commercial interests under the guise of promoting national security. The spokesman is quoted saying that in talks that wound up in Washington Friday, the EU stuck to its preferred option—known as Binary Offset Carrier or BOC 1.5--rather than accepting the U.S.-backed structure known as BOC 1.1. The dispatch recalls that last month, Charles Ries, a deputy assistant secretary of state, warned that any European refusal to go along with the U.S.-backed standard would harm U.S. and NATO security interests “which would be highly corrosive to the transatlantic relations.” The dispatch adds that despite the deadlock over signal structure, the spokesman said the broad outlines of a possible deal were taking shape.